Is It Just Me, Or Is The Media Full Of Cowards?

[Lardlad95]

I mean honestly, most major news networks contend that Kerry either won the debate, or that he gained more benefit from it. However it seems that no one wants to touch on the bigger issue and that issue is: Bush is a horrible debater. And I don't mean Richard nixon looking shifty horrible, I mean special class horrible.


Now bush isn't a stupid man, he's just not quick. However Bush simply does not know how to speak. He is not able to make ana rguement seem strong and there are really only two reasons he's ever won most of the debates he's been in. 1: His supporters think that he is God, and refuse to accept the fact that he isn't the greatest speaker alive. 2: he comes off as the type of guy you'd have a beer with. Trouble is he didn't do what he does best, coming off as an average person. ANd since he didn't do this the fact that he can't speak really showed up.

Also all of the republicans I talked to simply refused to accept the fact that he stumbled and mumbled last night. My friend Jared tried to say that Bush paused because he wanted to formulate his thoughts. Jarred is a debater as was I, he knows damn well that if he had acted like Bush in a round, he would have definitely lost.


Seriously people the media needs to bring this point out more. And Exp don't tell me that when he paused and stumbled and mumbled and got flustered that he was doing good, because he wasn't.

[redstar2000]

Well, it's not a "debate" for one thing.

It's a show...and your observation is akin to a reviewer's complaint that so-and-so as an actor really sucks.

And for another, of course the media cannot be expected to dwell on Bush's shortcomings...they may have to live with the bastard for another four years and the FCC can be a real pain-in-the-ass.

Why court unnecessary trouble?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 01:26 AM



.

Why court unnecessary trouble?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Well, it's not a "debate" for one thing.

Yeah I know...but saying "debate" is alot easier than saying "A television special in which two candidates from damn near indentical parties exchange fake pleasentries and try to explain why they aren't as bad as the other guy"


It's a show...and your observation is akin to a reviewer's complaint that so-and-so as an actor really sucks.

Difference is that an actor isn't going to send friends of mine to get shot at. Bush's in ability to speak just makes me all the more scared that people in america are stupid enough not to notice, and worse they are stupid enough to vote for this tupid man


And for another, of course the media cannot be expected to dwell on Bush's shortcomings...they may have to live with the bastard for another four years and the FCC can be a real pain-in-the-ass

They have no problems debating the shortcomings of everyone else in the world Yet they refuse to acknowledge the fact that Bush couldn't debate a semi-retarded quadraplegic chimpanzee

I just find it funny that not even guest commentators have brought up this point, what do they have to lose. Only Aaron MCGruder said that Bush is stupid and speaks about as well as my 1 year old nephew

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

He may not be a good debater, but I can empathise with his long pauses. Most folks may call him on that, but I don't give a shit. So what if he likes to take his time? The problem is that what comes out after a long difficult painstaking period of thought is shit. But that's the fault of his agenda, not his debating skills or lackthereof. And it's important to realize that the two are not the same thing. I can still be convinced by someone who stutters and takes long pauses, as long as they drive a strong argument. And driving a strong argument also isn't the same as having a good agenda. Redstar2000, for example, can convince loads of people, but his ideas are full of holes. So there are several factors here. (1) Agenda, where Bush fails miserably, (2) speech quality, where he also fails miserably, but who cares?, and (3) ability to drive a good argument, where Bish fails also.


Difference is that an actor isn't going to send friends of mine to get shot at. Bush's in ability to speak just makes me all the more scared that people in america are stupid enough not to notice, and worse they are stupid enough to vote for this tupid man

Voting for Kerry wouldn't be much better.

[Sabocat]

and the FCC can be a real pain-in-the-ass

Especially when the Chairman of the FCC (Michael Powell) is the son of Secretary of the State, Colin Powell . <_<

[Floyd.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 01:26 AM
Well, it&#39;s not a "debate" for one thing.

It&#39;s a show...and your observation is akin to a reviewer&#39;s complaint that so-and-so as an actor really sucks.

And for another, of course the media cannot be expected to dwell on Bush&#39;s shortcomings...they may have to live with the bastard for another four years and the FCC can be a real pain-in-the-ass.

Why court unnecessary trouble?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Redatar I don&#39;t get it how does this directly affect you? You live in Cuba right, so what does U.S. media have to do with you? :blink:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar does not live in Cuba. Where the fuck did you hear that?

[Exploited Class]

Well obviously the American Media for the most part are very much cowards.

First you have much of the media outlets being on the defensive from the extreme right wing accusations that they are the liberal press. So if Kerry completely smashed Bush and it was obvious to the whole world, the press couldn&#39;t report it that way. First off, declaring a winner through any other means than Polls, is considered Opinion Editorial.

So what they have to do is basically say, "Kerry appears to have won through polls taken after the debate." We have some minor speculation through our political analysis as to possibly why the public would feel that way, not how we feel, but how the public feels.

Also because of the fall out of CBS documents scandel, all the media outlets are very worried about how they present this because the right wing attack dogs are going after CBS broadcasters. The rest of the media doesn&#39;t want to fall into that boat.

What happens if you say, "Bush looked foolish or childish" well if Bush wins you may not be getting that private staged interview a year later with your star journalist. These news media giants spend a lot of money on soft lighting, soft filter lenses and scripted questions, they want to use them. :D

So if Barbara Walters, your big time ratings getter, is spoiled of her opportunity to interview the president because you bad mouthed him in September or October, and another media outlet gets those interviews, you will lose her as she signs on to ABC or NBC or wherever he is going.

Remember, it is all about ratings when you are a news program and they don&#39;t get much viewers to begin with. So your audience might be as split as the rest of the nation is on the selection of presidential canidates. If you tell them something they don&#39;t want to hear to harshly, the viewers might leave. Where do they go? They go to the news station (saying so very loosely) that they get the news they want, like FOX NEWS. So what you have is a bunch of news agencies giving some compliments to each canidate, mentioning some weaknesses of both canidates, but at the end saying, "Overall both did very well." They also make the supporters of the lesser canidate feel better about their lose, "Well everybody knew going into this that Bush was an underdog, although his performance was not spectacular, against a seasoned debater like Kerry, he did very well."

It gives them that whole "non-partisan" look. It gives them the ability to appear to be "fair and balanced". It would appear that they don&#39;t support either canidate, therefore they are able to deflect any criticism from political groups.

They are cowards, because of attack dogs, attacks against their affiliates, ratings, sponsors, current media scandals against the media.

The very idea that news is rating and advertising sponsered is the very reason that they are the most unfit organization to be called news.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 03:46 AM
Voting for Kerry wouldn&#39;t be much better.
Where did I say I was voting for kerry. This is about how much Bush sucks. I could give a fuck about kerry

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 3 2004, 06:10 PM
Well obviously the American Media for the most part are very much cowards.

First you have much of the media outlets being on the defensive from the extreme right wing accusations that they are the liberal press. So if Kerry completely smashed Bush and it was obvious to the whole world, the press couldn&#39;t report it that way. First off, declaring a winner through any other means than Polls, is considered Opinion Editorial.

So what they have to do is basically say, "Kerry appears to have won through polls taken after the debate." We have some minor speculation through our political analysis as to possibly why the public would feel that way, not how we feel, but how the public feels.

Also because of the fall out of CBS documents scandel, all the media outlets are very worried about how they present this because the right wing attack dogs are going after CBS broadcasters. The rest of the media doesn&#39;t want to fall into that boat.

What happens if you say, "Bush looked foolish or childish" well if Bush wins you may not be getting that private staged interview a year later with your star journalist. These news media giants spend a lot of money on soft lighting, soft filter lenses and scripted questions, they want to use them. :D

So if Barbara Walters, your big time ratings getter, is spoiled of her opportunity to interview the president because you bad mouthed him in September or October, and another media outlet gets those interviews, you will lose her as she signs on to ABC or NBC or wherever he is going.

Remember, it is all about ratings when you are a news program and they don&#39;t get much viewers to begin with. So your audience might be as split as the rest of the nation is on the selection of presidential canidates. If you tell them something they don&#39;t want to hear to harshly, the viewers might leave. Where do they go? They go to the news station (saying so very loosely) that they get the news they want, like FOX NEWS. So what you have is a bunch of news agencies giving some compliments to each canidate, mentioning some weaknesses of both canidates, but at the end saying, "Overall both did very well." They also make the supporters of the lesser canidate feel better about their lose, "Well everybody knew going into this that Bush was an underdog, although his performance was not spectacular, against a seasoned debater like Kerry, he did very well."

It gives them that whole "non-partisan" look. It gives them the ability to appear to be "fair and balanced". It would appear that they don&#39;t support either canidate, therefore they are able to deflect any criticism from political groups.

They are cowards, because of attack dogs, attacks against their affiliates, ratings, sponsors, current media scandals against the media.

The very idea that news is rating and advertising sponsered is the very reason that they are the most unfit organization to be called news.
good analysis

[commiecrusader]

Bush&#39;s buddies own/have stakes in most of the major broadcasting companies anyway so they are hardly gonna crucify him.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:52 PM
Bush&#39;s buddies own/have stakes in most of the major broadcasting companies anyway so they are hardly gonna crucify him.
I know he has an arm in fox, but what else?&#092;

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:37 PM
I know he has an arm in fox, but what else?&#092;
Well General Electric owns NBC. General Electric doesn&#39;t just make lightbulbs, they really make their money from Weapons and Defense contracts. Bush buys a lot of their stuff, they have a lot in stake if he wins.

How many shareholders of Westinghouse / CBS have shares in GE or in Grumman, Boeing?

I can&#39;t remember if General Dynamics is still around, F-18 Hornet and other aircrafts, but how many shares do they perhaps own of ABC or CBS as well?

It would make sense that if you are a defense contractor, you would own large and considerable shares, if not outright, of large media. Some already do like GE.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

That would be something if redstar lived in Cuba... We need a bio of redstar somewhere... you&#39;ve met Castro and Che right, man? You&#39;re quite the accomplished leftist&#33;
As for the media not saying bush is a moron as much as they should, I completely agree.

[/\______/\]

While I disagree that the media has its content controlled in some big right-wing consipiracy, its selective coverage is very stupid for sure. Personally I think it is because either
a. the media seems to think that people are only interested the kind of news that has previously been covered. Which might be true if it wasnt for all media outlets giving the same kind of news.
or b. the media in america being so fearful of losing ratings that it doesnt dare do anything new. After all, ratings there are huge, so a small percentage loss in ratings would mean a lot of viewers switching off.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by /&#092;______/&#092;@Oct 11 2004, 04:21 PM
While I disagree that the media has its content controlled in some big right-wing consipiracy, its selective coverage is very stupid for sure. Personally I think it is because either
a. the media seems to think that people are only interested the kind of news that has previously been covered. Which might be true if it wasnt for all media outlets giving the same kind of news.
or b. the media in america being so fearful of losing ratings that it doesnt dare do anything new. After all, ratings there are huge, so a small percentage loss in ratings would mean a lot of viewers switching off.
I&#39;d be more inclined to believe b. But I have this question, how do they determine that someone will not promote good ratings. If nothing else Bush&#39;s inability to articulate himself would promote a spirited debate, and nothing is more popular than the hannity and colmes, o&#39;rielly factor, crossfire type shows.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 01:37 AM
I know he has an arm in fox, but what else?&#092;
Obviously not CBS, that commie rag was actually caught lying in an attempt to compromise the Bush campaign.

Whether yyou like Bush or not, that is as clear as it gets with respect to most media outlets&#39; leftist leanings.